DOCSLIB.ORG

Monsters Together

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monsters Together The New York Review of Books April 23, 2015 Monsters Together The Devils’ Alliance: Hitler’s Pact with Stalin, 1939–1941 by Roger Moorhouse Basic Books, $29.99, 382 pp., Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov signing the Nazi–Soviet Pact, with German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop directly behind him, next to Stalin, August 23, 1939 By John Lukacs In the vast literature about Stalin and Hitler during World War II, little is said about their being allies for twenty-two months. That is more than an odd chapter in the history of that war, and its meaning deserves more attention than it has received. Two factors were involved in this neglect. One was that after Hitler chose to conquer Russia he did not succeed; Stalin emerged as one of the supreme victors of World War II. The other was the Western Powers’ relative lack of interest in Eastern Europe. Yet the war broke out in 1939 because of Eastern Europe, as a result of the British (and French) decision to oppose the German conquest of Poland. The political earthquake of the Nazi–Soviet Pact of August 23, 1939, nine days before the outbreak of war on September 1, did not deter Britain and France from declaring war on Germany upon its invasion of Poland. This is one of the few—very few—decisions in their favor at the time. That they were reluctant in the months that followed to wage war seriously against Germany is another story. Three quarters of a century have now passed since 1939. A fair amount has been written about the Nazi–Soviet Pact since then, mostly by Eastern European writers and historians. The Devil’s Alliance is a good account by the British historian Roger Moorhouse of what the pact meant for Hitler and Stalin—and, worse, for its victims. Perhaps the book’s most valuable part deals with the immediate consequences of the pact in 1939. Before then, obviously and stridently, Nazism and communism were outright enemies. From the very beginning of his political rise Hitler described Judaism and communism as his principal enemies. Stalin, by that time, was less of an ideologue. Like Hitler, he was a nationalist; he had little interest in international communism. In May 1939 Hitler recognized that in a German war with the West, Russia could be neutral. But to bring that about would not be simple; Russia would have to get something in return. During that summer a British-French delegation seeking some kind of a military alignment with Russia got nowhere. There were high German officials and diplomats, foremost among them Hitler’s foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, who were much inclined to a German–Russian deal. Meanwhile in Moscow Stalin had already moved: in early May he dismissed his foreign minister, the Jewish Maxim Litvinov, replacing him with Vyacheslav Molotov (who would remain his foreign minister during the war and well after). Hitler understood what that meant. In August Ribbentrop flew to Moscow to sign a Nazi–Soviet Non-Aggression Pact; a photograph of Ribbentrop with pen in hand shows Stalin visibly content in the background. Hitler hoped this near-fantastic event might deter the British and the French from going to war with him over Poland. That did not happen, although Stalin was not disappointed with that. What was more important than the Non-Aggression Pact was its addendum, a Secret Protocol, that called for nothing less than a division of Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, part of which was to be taken over by the Soviets. In addition, Germany recognized Russia’s “sphere of interest” in Estonia, Latvia, Finland, some of Lithuania, and the Romanian province of Bessarabia. Moscow denied the very existence of this Secret Protocol for a long time, well beyond World War II. But it existed in the German archives; and in 1939 it became a somber and dreadful reality. As late as 1986 the aged Molotov (then over ninety) denied its very existence to a Russian journalist. In fact, many of its conditions survived both the world war and the succeeding conflicts until 1989. Poland, its army and its people, fought the Germans bravely for a month in 1939 (almost as long as France, with its considerable army, in 1940). But seventeen days after the German invasion Stalin’s armies invaded Poland from the east. A few days later in Brest, a meeting place then just on the Russian side of the new partition of Poland, there was a small joint military parade of Nazi and Soviet soldiers and military vehicles. Just over two months later, less than three months after the outbreak of World War II, the only fighting on land in Europe was between Russians and Finns, who would not accept Russian control of their country. The British were aghast. They (and the French) even considered, briefly, intervening, but this did not come about. Soon Hitler’s armies conquered Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium—and then France. Churchill and Britain stood alone, for more than a year to come. At the end of September 1939 Ribbentrop flew to Moscow once more to arrange some border deals that would carry out the Secret Protocol. Throughout the war, of all Germany’s high officials, he was the most inclined to seek and keep agreements with the Russians. (His counterpart among the Russians, Molotov, had often reciprocal inclinations.) In this respect we may also notice the reciprocal tendencies of Hitler and Stalin. Hitler thought it necessary to carry out the terms of the alliance with Stalin; Stalin, for his part, was more enthusiastic about it than Hitler. One example is his perhaps unnecessary toast to Hitler after the signing of their pact on August 23, 1939: “I know how much the German nation loves its Führer, I should therefore like to drink to his health.” More telling for the historical record and more consequential for the peoples of Eastern Europe were the Soviets’ intentions and their aggressive behavior soon after the signing of the Nazi–Soviet Pact. On the day of Ribbentrop’s second visit to Moscow the Russian pressure on the Baltic states began. Russia demanded changes in the Baltic governments, first in Estonia, then its neighbors Latvia and Lithuania. More important, now Russia stationed many troops in those countries, particularly in their seaports, drastically reducing their independence. Their governments were under pressure to defer to Soviet orders and, except for Finland, did so. Two months later the Winter War with Finland began. The small Finnish army fought well and courageously, a fact that even Stalin had to accept; the result was a treaty that gave up pieces of territory to the Soviet Union but for the most part maintained Finnish independence. Far more ominous and horrible was the situation in Poland. There the Soviet occupation was at least as brutal and murderous—if not more so—than in the parts of Poland subjugated by the Germans. The Russians deported at least one million people—including entire families, without any of their belongings—to Siberia, Kazakhstan, and the Russian far north, with very few ever seeing their homelands again. In April and May 1940, some 22,000 Polish officers were shot to death near Katyn. More than a million Polish prisoners and workers were deported to Germany for forced labor during the war. It is telling that many of these practices began soon after the Soviets occupied eastern Poland in September 1939. Some Poles, including Jews, welcomed the Russian soldiers, thinking that they had come to relieve them from the Nazis. (Their subsequent disappointment in the Russians was such that some Jews in eastern Poland thought it better to escape to the Nazi zone, even though they knew how the Germans treated Jews.) Between 1939 and 1941 perhaps the majority of Jewish people in the world lived in Eastern Europe, most of them in eastern Poland, western Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia. Their final extermination by the Germans was not decided by Hitler until September 1941 and not put into effect before January 1942: but in many ways their fate had been foreshadowed by the Nazi–Soviet Pact. On June 14, 1940, the very day the German army marched into Paris, Moscow finally decided to implement the Secret Protocol. Within a day or two it declared the total incorporation of Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. Their governments were imprisoned or exiled. Many of their former officers were executed, and at least 25,000 of the Baltic peoples were deported to the Soviet Union. Hitler transported the German minorities in the Baltics to Germany on German ships. In November 1940 Molotov traveled to Berlin. His journey was not a success. His diplomatic manner was characteristically stiff. In view of the German conquest of almost all of Europe, he proposed to include Bulgaria in the Russian sphere. The Soviet Union would thus have a presence near the Bosphorus, at the expense of Turkey. The Germans did not respond to this. Sometime in December 1940 Hitler began to plan for an eventual war against Russia. Stalin was somewhat critical of Molotov’s behavior in Berlin; he thought his foreign minister may have been too rigid. This was typical of Stalin during the next six months. He could not and would not believe that Hitler would start a war against him while Germany still had Britain to deal with. Stalin made some moves to improve Russia’s situation. He negotiated a friendly pact with Yugoslavia, which amounted to nothing, since Hitler invaded Yugoslavia on the day of its signing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Soviet Diplomacy and the Spanish Civil War *
    SLIGHTLY REVISED 27.VII.2009 CHAPTER NINE CAUGHT IN A CLEFT STICK : SOVIET DIPLOMACY AND THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR * MICHAEL JABARA CARLEY The late British historian John Erickson wrote that the Spanish Civil War put the Soviet government into a cleft stick; caught between helping the Spanish Republic against a military, fascist uprising and alienating a new found, but milquetoast French ally. 1 The mutiny in Spain was directed against the recently elected centre-left coalition, the Popular Front, which included Spanish communists. It should have been normal for the Soviet Union to want to help workers and communists fighting against a right- wing, fascist mutiny. France too had just elected a Popular Front government, but the French coalition was fragile. Its most conservative element, the Radical party, was unwilling to get involved in Spain for fear of inflaming domestic political tensions or risking civil war. The British Conservative government also took a dim view of active involvement in the civil war and of Soviet intervention to support the Spanish Republicans, even if they were the legitimately elected, legal government. Most British Conservatives had a special aversion for the Soviet Union, and saw its involvement in Spain as a threat to spread communism into Western Europe. The Soviet government did not have the leisure to consider the Spanish problem outside the larger issue of its security in Europe. In January 1933 Adolf Hitler had taken power in Germany. The Soviet government immediately saw the danger even if the Soviet Union had maintained good or tolerable relations with the Weimar Republic during the 1920s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Polish "Sickness" and Franco-Soviet Relations, 1934-1939
    THE POLISH "SICKNESS" AND FRANCO-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1934-1939 Shawnessy Yevonne Johnson B.A. Honours, Carleton University, 1995 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History O Shawnessy Yevonne Johnson 1997 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY October 1997 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or by other means, without permission of the author. National Library Biblloth&que nationale 191 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acqutsitiomt Bibliographic Services se~ces+bliographiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distnbute or sell reproduire, priter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/filrn, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique. The author retains ownerstup of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis, ~eithirthe droit d'auteur qui protege cette thtse. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent itre imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorkation. APPROVAL Name: Shawnessy Yevonne Johnson L Degree: Master of Arts (History) Title of Thesis: The Polish "Sickness" and Franco-Soviet Relations, 1934-1939 Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Ian Dyck Dr. ~icdard&, Debb Se ior Supervisor &ed& of History ~r=tin Kitchen Professor of History pr.
    [Show full text]
  • Antanas Smetona and Foreign Diplomats
    chapter 9 Antanas Smetona and Foreign Diplomats After Lithuania received diplomatic recognition and established diplomatic rela- tions with other states, diplomatic missions from foreign countries began to gather in Kaunas, forming a diplomatic corps. Heading the missions were plenipotentiary representatives, or ministers. (The ussr called the heads of its diplomatic mission “polpreds,” a contraction for the Russian title “plenipotentiary representatives.”) The United States had no diplomats in Kaunas, only consuls, since the United States mission resided in Riga, and so the highest-ranking American diplomat in the Baltic states would come to Kaunas only on occasion. Over the years, the dip- lomatic corps gradually grew, but it remained small enough that the diplomats knew each other intimately. They socialized together since there was not much entertainment in Kaunas, which in the 1920s had barely 100,000 inhabitants. The diplomats considered their service in Kaunas a hardship, uncomfortable, and even difficult. In the 1920s most houses in Kaunas did not have modern conveniences; water from wells was unsuitable for drinking; sidewalks consisted of wooden planking. Americans drank only mineral water, at first even using it for washing up. Since Lithuania had no diplomatic relations with Poland, there were no Polish diplomats in Kaunas. The Americans did not socialize with Soviet diplo- mats because their countries had no diplomatic relations. Diplomats of low rank represented Great Britain and France. But their significance for this study is great. Diplomats and consuls wrote reports to their governments about life in Kaunas and in Lithuania, about political developments. They had contacts with representatives of the government; at will they socialized with opposition leaders, invited them as guests, and became friendly with some.
    [Show full text]
  • In Soviet Approaches to International Politics and Law
    Pace International Law Review Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 1 September 1990 "New Thinking" in Soviet Approaches to International Politics and Law John N. Hazard Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation John N. Hazard, "New Thinking" in Soviet Approaches to International Politics and Law, 2 Pace Y.B. Int'l L. 1 (1990) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol2/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PACE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 2 1990 LECTURE "NEW THINKING" IN SOVIET APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND LAWt John N. Hazardtt No more startling evidence of "new thinking"1 among So- viet policy makers formulating attitudes toward foreign policy and international law could be found than Soviet Foreign Minis- ter Shevardnadze's admission in 1989 that the much-debated t The third annual Blaine Sloan Lecture was delivered on March 15, 1990. Presented in honor of Blaine Sloan, Professor Emeritus of International Law and Organization at Pace University, the lecture series is delivered each year to the University and Law School community in order to promote scholarly debate in international law. tf B.A., LL.B., J.S.D., LL.D.; Nash Professor Emeritus of Law, Columbia University. The phrase "new thinking" first appears in M. GORBACHEV, PERESTROIKA: NEw THINKING FOR OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD xiii (Perennial Libr.
    [Show full text]
  • Senior Scholars Interwar Europe Fall 2019 Week 10
    11/5/19 Peace, Appeasement, War Senior Scholars: • Goal of Paris Peace Conference was “collective security” Interwar Europe: – Showpiece was League of Nations WorkinG Out Modernity in the Midst of Crisis Fall 2019 Prof. Kenneth F. Ledford [email protected] 368-4144 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY HISTORY DEPARTMENT Peace, Appeasement, War Peace, Appeasement, War • Collective security was threated by the existence of • The British public reverted to its traditional aversion to revisionism continental entanglements – Nations who rejected the legitimacy of the settlement and sought to – Britain repudiated its guarantee pledge to France revise it – Britain relied on the League of nations and multilateral action rather • Differences emerged among victors as to the meaning of than bilateral security arrangements collective security – Even with the League, Britain relied on moral suasion, opposing attempts to apply military or economic sanctions – Differences, combined with economic tensions and revisionism, weakened collective security until it proved meaningless after 1936 – Also weakened by isolationism HISTORY DEPARTMENT HISTORY DEPARTMENT Peace, Appeasement, War Peace, Appeasement, War • The French viewed things differently • So France resorted to creating a network of military alliances – Not cut off by water from German invasion outside of the League – Their recent victory was only with vast aid and great effort – September 1920: Defensive alliance with Belgium – Felt pressing need to supplement their defensive resources – February 1921:
    [Show full text]
  • Mirrors of Moscow
    MIRRORS OF MOSCOW MIRRORS OF MOSCOW I BY LOUISE BRYANT With five illustrations by CESARE NEW YORK THOMAS SELTZER 1923 Copyright, 1923, by THOMAS SELTZER, INc. All rights reserued ftiJITED IN THB VIUTED STATBS OF A:U:BR.JCA TO THREE WISE EDITORs- M. KOENIGSBERG BRADFORD MERRILL PHILLIP FRANCIS CONTENTS I'AGJ: FoREWORD x1 LENIN AND His SuBORDINATEs 1 JACOB PETERS, FEDORE S. DZERZHINSKY. AND THE ExTRAORDINARY CoMMISSION . 43 ANATOL VASSILIEVITCH LUNACHARSKY AND RussiAN CuLTURE . 69 MICHAEL JVANOVITCH KALININ AND THE PEASANTS 85 MADAME ALEXANDRA KOLLONTAI AND THE WoMAN's MovEMENT • 109 LEON TROTSKY, SoviET WAR LoRD 129 ENVER PASHA AND THE MOHAMMEDANS 147 TIKON AND THE RussiAN CHuRcH 16 5 TcHICHERIN, CoMMISSAR FOR FoREIGN AF- FAIRS, AND HIS SUBORDINATES 179 MAXIM LITVINOV, AssiSTANT CoMMISSAR, LEONID KRASSIN AND SUBORDINATES 197 ~·· ILLUSTRATIONS Fadn1 Pa1t. LENIN 2 KALININ. 86 KoLLONTAI 110 TROTSKY. ENVER PASHA FOREWORD Revolution I The air is filled with flames· and fumes. The shapes of men, seen through the smoke, become distorted and unreal. Promethean super­ men, they seem,· giants in sin ·or virtue, Sa tans or saviours. But, in truth, behind the screen of smoke and flame they are like other men : no larger and no smaller, no better and no worse: all crea­ tures of the same incessant passions, hungers, vani­ ties and fears. So it is in Russia. And in this book I have tried to show the leaders of the revolution as they really are, as I know· them i.n their homes, where the red glare does not penetrate and they live as other men.
    [Show full text]
  • Talking Fish: on Soviet Dissident Memoirs*
    Talking Fish: On Soviet Dissident Memoirs* Benjamin Nathans University of Pennsylvania My article may appear to be idle chatter, but for Western sovietolo- gists at any rate it has the same interest that a fish would have for an ichthyologist if it were suddenly to begin to talk. ðAndrei Amalrik, Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984? ½samizdat, 1969Þ All Soviet émigrés write ½or: make up something. Am I any worse than they are? ðAleksandr Zinoviev, Homo Sovieticus ½Lausanne, 1981Þ IfIamasked,“Did this happen?” I will reply, “No.” If I am asked, “Is this true?” Iwillsay,“Of course.” ðElena Bonner, Mothers and Daughters ½New York, 1991Þ I On July 6, 1968, at a party in Moscow celebrating the twenty-eighth birthday of Pavel Litvinov, two guests who had never met before lingered late into the night. Litvinov, a physics teacher and the grandson of Stalin’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov, had recently made a name for himself as the coauthor of a samizdat text, “An Appeal to World Opinion,” thathadgarneredwideattention inside and outside the Soviet Union. He had been summoned several times by the Committee for State Security ðKGBÞ for what it called “prophylactic talks.” Many of those present at the party were, like Litvinov, connected in one way or another to the dissident movement, a loose conglomeration of Soviet citizens who had initially coalesced around the 1966 trial of the writers Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel, seeking to defend civil rights inscribed in the Soviet constitution and * For comments on previous drafts of this article, I would like to thank the anonymous readers for the Journal of Modern History as well as Alexander Gribanov, Jochen Hell- beck, Edward Kline, Ann Komaromi, Eli Nathans, Sydney Nathans, Serguei Oushakine, Kevin M.
    [Show full text]
  • What Americans Thought of Joseph Stalin Before and After World War II
    A Thesis entitled “Uncle Joe”: What Americans Thought of Joseph Stalin Before and After World War II by Kimberly Hupp A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of The Masters of Liberal Studies ______________________________ Advisor: Dr. Michael Jakobson ______________________________ College of Graduate Studies University of Toledo May 2009 1 2 An Abstract of “Uncle Joe”: What Americans Thought of Joseph Stalin Before and After World War II by Kimberly Hupp A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of The Master of Liberal Studies University of Toledo May 2009 A thesis presented on the American public opinion of Josef Stalin before and after World War II beginning with how Russia and Stalin was portrayed in the media before the war began, covering how opinions shifted with major events such as the famine, collectivization, the Great Terror, wartime conferences, the Cold War and McCarthyism. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................v List of Figures……………………………………………………………….vii List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………… .viii Introduction.........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • November 16, 1933
    The White House, Washington November 16, 1933 My dear Mr. Litvinov: I am very happy to inform you that as a result of our conversations the Government of the United States has decided to estabish normal diplomatic relations with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to exchange ambassadors. I trust that the relations now established between our peoples may forever remain normal and friendly, and that our Na tions henceforth may cooperate for their mutual benefit and for the preservation of the peace of the world. I am, my dear Mr. Litvinov, Very sincerely yours, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT Washington November 16, 1933 My dear Mr. President: I am very happy to inform you that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is glad to establish normal diplomatic relations with the Government of the United States and to exchange ambassadors. I, too, share the hope that the relations now established between our peoples may forever remain normal and friendly, and that our Nations henceforth may cooperate for their mutual benefit and for the preservation of the peace of the world. I am, my dear Mr. President, Very sincerely yours, MAXIM LITVINOV People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Washington November 16, 1933 My dear Mr. President: I have the honor to inform you that coincident with the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two Governments it will be the fixed policy of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: 1.To respect scrupulously the indisputable right of the United States to order its own life within its own jurisdiction in its own way and to refrain from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States, its territories or possessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture, Power, and Mission to Moscow: Film and Soviet-American Relations During World War II
    Culture, Power, and Mission to Moscow: Film and Soviet-American Relations during World War II Todd Bennett For suggestions on how to use this article in the United States history survey course, see our “Teaching the JAH” Web site supplement at ,http://www.indiana. edu/~jah/teaching.. Following a sumptuous feast (and copious amounts of vodka), the guests, gathered around a banquet table deep within the Kremlin’s walls in May 1943, toasted Soviet- American friendship. Premier Joseph V. Stalin and Foreign Minister Vyacheslav M. Molotov praised the Grand Alliance. Anastas I. Mikoyan, the Soviet commissar for foreign trade, Lavrenty P. Beria, the head of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (Narodnyi Kommissariat Vnutrennykh Del, nkvd), and Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet ambassador to the United States, offered toasts, and the Anglo-Americans present—including the British ambassador to Moscow, Adm. William H. Standley, the reigning United States representative, and Joseph E. Davies, Washington’s former ambassador—reciprocated. The American emissary from 1936 to 1938, Davies was there because President Franklin D. Roosevelt had sent him to arrange an introductory summit with Stalin, a meeting at which Roosevelt was sure all out- standing Soviet-American differences could be ironed out. Although Davies’ pres- ence was unusual, thus far the evening had been little different from similar receptions held by Soviet leaders for their Allied comrades during World War II. On this occasion, however, the former ambassador had brought with him a movie that both he and Roosevelt hoped would convince the Soviet dictator to eschew separate peace negotiations with Adolf Hitler and to remain within the tenuous Big Three Todd Bennett is visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Nevada, Reno.
    [Show full text]
  • 248 Herbert Hoover's Brush with Bolshevism Bertrand M. Patenaude
    #248 Herbert Hoover's Brush with Bolshevism by Bertrand M. Patenaude Bertrand M. Patenaude was a Research Scholar at the Kennan Institute in 1990-1991 and a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution for War, Peace, and Revolution during 1989-1990. He received his Ph.D. in history from Stanford University in 1987, where he is presently teaching. This paper was written during his residency at the Kennan Institute. Copyright June 1992 by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Edited by Peggy Mcinerny The Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars The Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies is a division of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Through its program of fellowships, meetings, and publications, the Institute encourages scholarship on Russia and the Soviet Union, embracing a broad range of fields in the social sciences and the humanities. The Kennan Institute is supported by contributions from foundations, corporations, individuals, and the United States Government. Kennan Institute Occasional Papers The Kennan Institute makes Occasional Papers available to all those interested in Russian and Soviet Studies. Occasional Papers are submitted by Kennan Institute scholars and visiting speakers, particularly those who wish to receive timely feedback on their work. Copies of Occasional Papers and a list of papers currently available can be obtained free of charge by contacting: Occasional Papers Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW, Suite 704 Washington, D.C. 20024-2518 (202) 287-3400 This Occasional Paper has been produced with support provided by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 01Acta Slavicasort.P65
    12 BETWEEN IMPERIAL TEMPTATION AND ANTI-IMPERIAL FUNCTION IN EASTERN EUROPEAN POLITICS: POLAND FROM THE EIGHTEENTH TO TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ANDRZEJ NOWAK WAS THE POLISH-LITHUANIAN COMMONWEALTH AN EMPIRE? There are two questions: how to analyse effectively the political structure and function of a vast Eastern European realm named through centuries the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and what it should properly be called? “Imperiological” studies, rapidly growing in the past two decades, form an original context in which a new answer to this perennial historical question seems possible: the Commonwealth was an empire. In fact, this name has already been given to the Polish-Lithuanian state, rather intuitively however, and in a not very convincing manner, in a few recent studies. “It is not customary to speak of a Polish empire, [...] but I do not see why the Swedes, with a Grand Duchy of Finland and other possessions in northern Germany, had an empire while the Poles did not” – based solely on this statement, a Harvard historian of Eastern European geopolitics, John P. LeDonne, posits a Polish empire on a par not only with the seventeenth century Swedish state, but with the Russian Empire of Peter the Great and his successors as well. Another American scholar, a political scientist, Ilya Prizel, stresses similarities between the Russian and Polish empires – as he calls them – due to their multinational structure and their supra-national elites.1 1 John P. LeDonne, The Russian Empire and the World 1700-1917. The Geopolitics of Expansion and Containment (New York, Oxford, 1997), p. 371; Ilya Prizel, National Identity and Foreign Policy.
    [Show full text]